Ruger RH or SRH

EdInk

New member
I'm think about getting a .44mag or .454casull DA revolver. Can someone tell me the main difference between these two models. What barrel length do you guys prefer on them. I have smaller sized hands which would you suggest? I'm using it mostly at the range but wouldn't mind having it for outdoor hiking even though it is total overkill for where I live. Thanks for any help. Also, please feel frees to post pics of your guns.
 

moxie

New member
With small hands, the SRH is definitely the way to go. The grip will fit you better and the trigger reach is somewhat shorter. For the purposes you describe, the .44 magnum with a 7.5" barrel is perfect. Stout but not overkill.
 

BIG P

New member
The redhawk is 44mag only does not have the big barrel lug or scope mount.
comes in 5.5 or 7.5 barrel only.The SRH has scope mount comes in 44mag,454casull ,480Ruger with 7.5 or 9.5'' barrels.Both work good with smaller grips
the SRH with the weight helps ease the sharp recoil of the magnum loads.
The 454 has pretty heavy recoil for target shooting but will also shoot 45 long colt ammo that has about 1/2 the recoil.
I use a SRH 454 in 7.5 with a 2-8 power scope NIKON.I dont have a real good pic sorry it looks better in person.:D:D
 

Attachments

  • Paul's Guns 007.jpg
    Paul's Guns 007.jpg
    57.7 KB · Views: 41
Last edited:

EdInk

New member
From what I've been reading online the SRH seems to be the
preferred between the two. I wonder why Ruger doesn't make it in a
5 or 6 inch barrel.....
 

Legionnaire

New member
Well, I've had SRHs and RHs. The SRHs are long gone; hunting duty now goes to a 5.5" Redhawk. I do have rather large hands, though, so consider moxie's comment. You really ought to handle, and preferably shoot, both before making a decision.
 

jmstr

New member
What everyone said about hand size and RH vs SRH issue.

I just had an opportunity to handle both the SRH Alaskan and the RH in 4" barrel. I don't want a longer barrel than 4" as I have a 6" S&W already for that.

I have normal sized palms [a little thick maybe] but slightly shorter fingers than the norm for my palms. Trying on gloves proves this every time. If it fits my palm/hand, I have 1/8-3/8 of the finger area unfilled in the gloves.

I can reach/control the trigger on both safely enough for DA use, but the SRH Alaskan definitely felt more secure. The RH felt just a tad too big in the palm area. I actually like the look of the RH better, but I think I'll be able to shoot a SRH better due to the grip area/grip size and the distance from the back of the grip to the trigger face. It is a better fit for my hand.

That said, it WOULD be nice if Ruger introduced a SRH in 4" barrel. Maybe their afraid no one would buy the RH in 4" ?
 

jmortimer

Moderator
The Redhawk is a single spring design and the Super Redhawk has a double spring design which is understand is smoother and easier to tune.
 
Last edited:

laytonj1

New member
I like the Redhawk, it has a classic look and feel to it.
The SRH, well, to me it's just homely, especially with the target gray finish.
But hey, that's just my opinion.

Jim
 

jhgreasemonkey

New member
I also preffer the look of the redhawk over the super redhawk. The super redhawk may not look as nice but the trigger is a bit nicer and it has decent scope mounts if you want to go that route. Plus it is probably the most durable .44 magnum ever produced. I have a 5.5" redhawk and that barrel size is good for multi purpose use range/plinking/hunting. My 7.5" .44 magnum is a little more enjoyable at the range because I can get a little better accuracy further out there. But it's not as nice to carry around in a holster all day as the 5.5" redhawk. Both are popular barrel sizes though so pick the one you like.
 
Top